ArticleBMC cancer2026
Comparison of six-degree-of-freedom registration errors across different anatomical registration regions in head and neck radiotherapy under identical CBCT conditions.
Article in BMC cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveCone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) has been widely adopted for patient setup evaluation and error correction in head and neck radiotherapy. Although different anatomical registration regions are routinely used in clinical practice, the characteristics of six-degree-of-freedom (6DoF) setup errors associated with different registration regions have not been systematically compared within the same CBCT acquisition. This study aimed to compare the distributional characteristics of 6DoF setup errors across different anatomical registration regions using a within-scan comparison framework and to describe their structural features from a multivariate perspective.
methodsCBCT data acquired during the radiotherapy course of patients with head and neck cancer were retrospectively analyzed. For each CBCT scan, multiple anatomical registration regions were independently applied based on the same image dataset, and the corresponding 6DoF setup errors were recorded. Paired statistical methods were used to compare the distributions of setup errors among different registration regions. Principal component analysis (PCA) was further performed to characterize the overall structural patterns of the 6DoF error components.
resultsWithin the same CBCT acquisition, the distributions of 6DoF setup errors differed among anatomical registration regions. The observed differences were mainly reflected in certain rotational components, whereas the differences among translational components were relatively less pronounced. PCA results demonstrated that the structure of 6DoF setup errors could be characterized by different variation patterns dominated by either rotational or translational components. Although partial overlap was observed among registration regions in the principal component space, differences in their distributional characteristics were still evident.
conclusionsWithin the same CBCT acquisition, the selection of anatomical registration regions may influence both the distribution and structural characteristics of 6DoF setup errors in head and neck radiotherapy. These findings suggest that the potential impact of registration region selection should be considered during clinical setup evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.